The History and Progression of Manual Rounds: A Structured Peer Observation Process for Teachers in Urban School Settings Jana Hunzicker, Bradley University Jenny Tripses, Bradley University Robert Wolffe, Bradley University Taunya Jenkins, Peoria Public Schools Martha Ewan-Skorczewski, Peoria Public Schools Patricia Chrosniak, Bradley University ABSTRACT: Research shows that half of all teachers working in urban school settings leave the profession within five years, and many who choose to leave are the ones who are most effective (Coggins & Diffenbaugh, 2013.) Manual Rounds, a structured peer observation process based on the established practice of instructional rounds, was implemented at Manual Academy in 2010 to strengthen teaching practices and enhance student learning experiences in the classrooms of teachers new to an urban school setting. Project improvements were made incrementally over three years’ time, with a different Manual Rounds model launched in the fourth year. This article offers an overview of instructional rounds before describing the history and progression of Manual Rounds from various stakeholder perspectives including administrators, experienced teachers, new teachers, and Bradley PDS facilitators. We believe the case study shared in this article will offer other school-university partnerships insight and ideas for designing and implementing their own instructional rounds processes. NAPDS Essentials Addressed: #3/Ongoing and reciprocal professional development for all participants guided by need; #4/A shared commitment to innovative and reflective practice by all participants. ‘‘Our new teachers could really use some help,’’ confided and sciences. The Bradley Professional Development Schools Manual Academy’s principal during an early September meeting (PDS) Partnership, coordinated by faculty in Bradley’s College of to discuss professional development school (PDS) projects for Education and Health Sciences, was established in 1995 to the school year. ‘‘Many have never taught in a high need, urban create an extended learning environment that addresses and setting before, and they’re being eaten alive!’’ This conversation, responds to the changing needs of P-20 learners. Funded by the which first took place in 2010, led to the creation and evolution William T. Kemper Foundation-Commerce Bank, Trustee and of a collaborative professional development model designed to the university, the partnership serves eight elementary, middle, strengthen teaching practices and enhance student learning and/or high schools near Bradley University. experiences in the classrooms of new teachers as part of All of Bradley’s eight PDS sites serve high-needs student Manual’s school-university partnership with Bradley University. populations, defined in part by the 2001 No Child Left Behind This article describes the history and progression of what came Act as schools ‘‘where at least 30% of students come from to be known as Manual Rounds, a structured peer observation families with incomes below the poverty line’’ (Teach.com, n.d., process based on the established practice of instructional rounds para. 1). Research reminds us that students from low socio- (City, 2011; City, Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel, 2009; Marzano, economic backgrounds often face emotional and social 2010/2011; Marzano & Toth, 2013; Teitel, 2014). challenges, acute and chronic stressors, cognitive lags, and health and safety issues not experienced by students from more Background and Rationale advantaged environments (Jensen, 2009). Indeed, many students enrolled at Bradley PDS sites often demonstrate disruptive Bradley University, a private, comprehensive university in Peoria, behaviors that interfere with their own learning as well as that of Illinois, serves 5,700 undergraduate and graduate students in their school peers. In addition to a significant number of five colleges: business, communication and fine arts, education classroom management issues, many students at Bradley PDS and health sciences, engineering and technology, and liberal arts sites are academically at-risk as defined by the partner school 6 School—University Partnerships Vol. 10, No. 1 The History and Progression of Manual Rounds 7 district as students who are eligible for free or reduced lunch Table 1. Manual Academy Teacher Retention Rates Before, according to federal guidelines and perform academically two or During, and Following Manual more grade levels below their peers. Teacher Retention Manual Academy, the Bradley PDS site featured in this Implementation Academic Year Rate (All Teachers) article, is a grades 7-12 middle and high school with an Before Manual Rounds 2009-2010 51% enrollment of 800 students. According to the Illinois Report During Manual Rounds 2010-2011 56% Card [IRC] (2014-2015), 84% of students enrolled at Manual live During Manual Rounds 2011-2012 62% in low-income households. Moreover, only 58% of Manual During Manual Rounds 2012-2013 62% students are ready to graduate in four years. During Manual Rounds 2013-2014 43% According to the 2013 MetLife Survey of the American Following Manual Rounds 2014-2015 75% Teacher, only 39% of teachers feel ‘‘very satisfied’’ with teaching – a significant decline from 62% in 2008 (Scherer, 2013.) Moreover, research shows that half of all teachers working in the observers and the host teachers analyze the observation urban school settings leave the profession within five years, and notes, looking for patterns that lead to suggestions for many who choose to leave are the ones who are most effective improvement. Following the experience, the host teachers (Coggins & Diffenbaugh, 2013.) Indeed, between 2009 and incorporate insights gained and suggestions generated into their 2015, Manual Academy’s teacher retention rate ranged from teaching practice (City, 2011; Tietel, 2014) and observers reflect 43% to 75% (see Table 1). Of the new teachers hired by Manual on questions such as the following: 1) As a result of what I saw each year, many are under-prepared for the challenges of working today, which aspects of my teaching do I feel were validated? 2) with urban, at-risk students because they are fresh out of college, As a result of what I saw today, what questions do I have about new to an urban school setting, or both. So, when Manual’s my own teaching? 3) As a result of what I saw today, what new principal asked the Bradley PDS Partnership for new teacher ideas do I have? (Marzano & Toth, 2013). support, Manual Rounds was created to support these new and/ It is important to emphasize that, while having the same or new-to-Manual teachers (hereafter referred to as ‘‘new eventual goal, instructional rounds differ from supervision in teachers.’’) that rounds are inquiry-based while supervision is evaluative. During teacher evaluation, learning is expected only by the Instructional Rounds person being evaluated; during instructional rounds, everyone participating is expected to learn. Moreover, during teacher The term ‘‘rounds’’ is based on the hospital rounds approach evaluation, the primary focus is on the teacher being evaluated that medical interns take with experienced doctors during their and suggestions for improvement are provided by the evaluator. final years of medical school (City, et al., 2009). The concept was During instructional rounds, the primary focus is on instruction embraced by the Manual principal, academy leaders, and and the classroom environment, and accountability is peer-to- teachers after attending a district-wide presentation by Dr. peer (City, 2011). Tom Roy, professional development specialist for the Marzano The greatest benefit of instructional rounds is that the Group. process allows teachers to take charge of their own learning. Marzano (2011) describes instructional rounds as one of the Other benefits include focusing on the work of teaching and most valuable tools a school or district can use to enhance learning, building common understanding of effective teaching teachers’ pedagogical skills and develop a culture of collabora- and learning, providing data that informs professional develop- tion. The purpose of instructional rounds is not to provide feedback to the teacher being observed, although this is an ment and continuous improvement, and reducing variability in option. Rather, the primary purpose is for teachers to compare instructional practice schoolwide (Marzano & Toth, 2013; Teitel, their instructional practices with those of the teachers they 2014;). observe. The chief benefit of this approach resides in the Challenges of instructional rounds include the possibility conversation that takes place among observing teachers following that teachers who know each other well may stay in the ‘‘land of the observation as well as in subsequent self-reflection (City, nice’’ with one another rather than work at developing the 2011). nonjudgmental, descriptive observation notes and analyses that Instructional rounds combine three common elements: are the foundations of rounds. In addition, some teachers may classroom observation, an improvement strategy, and a network not even notice ineffective routines or practices because they are of educators (City, 2011). First, observers identify a ‘‘problem of immersed in the culture of the school, struggling to come up practice’’ on which to focus during the observation. Next, they with suggestions for doing things differently to contribute to divide into small groups to observe in classrooms for improvement (Tietel, 2014). Both challenges can be minimized approximately